brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Manual of Style
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. '''Please do not modify it.' Since we've decided to have a Manual of Style, I thought that suggestions/votes should be listed on a separate forum since the original was about possible Good Articles. So, suggestions which have been made on the previous forum are listed here, with space for voting on them. If you're opposing a proposed element, please say why. Successful proposals are at the Manual of Style page. Voting is set to close June 23, 2009 Sets Should contain: Main information describing set (+5) Support # Kind of given ;) 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) # kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) # --Coupon11 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC) # 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) # The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ / } 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose Content suggestions Since this information should be added anyway, we should discuss what information should be added in particular. * Set name is a set of the THEME theme and has been released in YEAR. It contains BUILDINGS, VEHICLES and MINIFIGURES.--LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC) * Order should be name(Bold), theme, released, model, minifigures, and anything else--Coupon11 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) * I don't know if we want to get too strict on how the information is written. I agree with LegOtaku that we should have the information that was stated in there and with Coupon11 about the bold name (and number before name), but don't think it should be too rigid. 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC) * I don't know about anyone else, but I like it when there is basically the same first paragraph describing sets, but with different words for different theme, year, minifigures, etc. 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) * Alternate models where applicable. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ / } 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) * Maybe for now we should leave this as something general like "a relevant description", and create a separate forum just on what content should be included? 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Quote of description from shop.lego.com (where there was/is one) (+3) Support # 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) # LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC) # 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose Neutral # kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) - Sometimes it looks out of place to me compared to other articles, but I don't mind either way # --Coupon11 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Price Price should contain multiple currencies, including (where available): US Dollar (US $) (+4) Support # 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ / } 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose Euro (€) (+4) Support # 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ / } 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose UK Pound (£) (+4) Support # 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ / } 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC) # --Coupon11 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose Australian Dollar (AU $) (+2) Support # 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) # The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ / } 14:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose # --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Comments * Not sure if this is formatted very well, but was the best way I could think to do it. I've tested this in an infobox and have found that four currencies will fit on one line (for prices up to 999.99) if the following format is used: US $xxx.xx / €xxx.xx / £xxx.xx / AU $xxx.xx. Don't know if this really counts for anything, and NZ will work in place of US or AU too. 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) * Just wondering whether there should be some sort of "where possible" added to this- if the price can only be found in US$, then I don't think the article in question should be labelled as not conforming to the MOS should it? 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :* no, if there is no price for one of them, it shouldn't be labelled as not conforming kingcjc 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::* Do you have to put the price. Some pages have an unkown price (Can you make a category and temlate for them).--Coupon11 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::* Thanks , "where available" has been added to title. , I think every set had a price at one point, but I guess if there are no sources for the price that the section can be left out, but I don't believe that a category/template is required for this 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::* , can i ask why you oppose adding UK and Aus prices? kingcjc 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC) :::* Because they arn't that major and have few promotional sets. Meaning that all set have a US price but a few. UK and AU don't have any (or many).--Coupon11 June 2009 (UTC) ::::* I beg to differ. the UK and Aus markets are just as important. Im sure if ytou lived in one of them you would feel the same kingcjc 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ::::* Agreed. And I hardly call a potential market of approximately 61 million for the UK "not major". Also giving the AU price also helps to give NZ users a rough estimate of the price. And all current sets on the lego shop have UK and AU prices, and I know for a fact that most sets on Eurobricks list at least the UK price. And as stated in the title, if the price cannot be found for a certain currency, it's ok not to put it in, as long as a serious attempt to find the price has been made 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC) :::::* Note that every set has a us price but sets that don't have a price (Promotional) or the price is unkown.--Coupon11 12:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::* Sorry- I'm not sure whether I'm understanding you correcly, but every set sold in the UK or Australia has a price in UK£ or AU$ 12:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::* Sets not available in the US would not have a US price.... kingcjc 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Why would you use Pound or the Au. I don't see any sets only advalable in UK or AUS so why would you use the curency.--Coupon11 23:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC) * The reason these were suggested were so that UK and Australian users would know how much the set was. But let's stop talking about this- the votes for the parties involved are down, and probably not going to be changed 00:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ------------ Should contain external links to Brickset, Peeron and Lugnet (±0) Support # Since these pages serve as commonly accepted databases in the scene, it's only logical to provide links. They are also the primary source for basic set information and in some cases the easiest way to prove their existence. Moreover, Peeron has inventories and instructions for the sets. --LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose # Not needed, If people want more info, They may go to the sites. Info is already there.--Coupon11 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Neutral # Personally I'm neutral on this one becasue, while I think it could be a good resource to use, we aren't really affiliated with these sites in any way 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) # kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) # I prefer to keep those out of the main article, but wouldn't mind if there was some othen template of something to keep those in. 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Comments * Since this has stayed at 0 for a long time, maybe we should have this as an optional extra? If a page was nominated for a Good Article, it can have this, but doesn't necessarily need to? 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) * If it's all right with everyone, I'd like to start wrapping this up since there haven't been any new votes for a long time- I've given it one more week before it closes, but if anyone feels that it needs to go longer, please let me know 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Category:Forum archive